incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

That's what I originally thought but the OOYALA presentation from C*2012 got me confused. Do
you guys know what's going on here?
The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2nGBUuvVmc&feature=player_detailpage#t=790s
The slides: Slide 22 @ http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/C2012-Hastur-NoahGibbs.pdf
-- Drew
On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:14 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Imho it is probably more efficient for wide. When you decompress 8k blocks to get at
a 200 byte row you create overhead , particularly young gen.
> On Monday, March 18, 2013, Sylvain Lebresne <sylvain@datastax.com> wrote:
> > The way compression is implemented, it is oblivious to the CF being wide-row or
narrow-row. There is nothing intrinsically less efficient in the compression for wide-rows.
> > --
> > Sylvain
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Drew Kutcharian <drew@venarc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Guys,
> >>
> >> I remember reading somewhere that C* compression is not very effective when
most of the CFs are in wide-row format and some folks turn the compression off and use disk
level compression as a workaround. Considering that wide rows with composites are "first class
citizens" in CQL3, is this still the case? Has there been any improvements on this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Drew
> >